There’s a difference between “bitcoin is a public ledger” and “we can determine that Alice paid Bob 1 bitcoin”.
The bitcoin devs thought they could achieve the “public ledger” part while avoiding the second part. It turns out they couldn’t.
Comment on How a 27-Year-Old Codebreaker Busted the Myth of Bitcoin’s Anonymity
Varyk@sh.itjust.works 10 months ago
I don’t think this story is correct, just to chime in with everybody else. It was explicitly stated that bitcoin was a public ledger in the whitepaper.
merc@sh.itjust.works 10 months ago
massive_bereavement@kbin.social 10 months ago
What part do you not consider correct?
Varyk@sh.itjust.works 10 months ago
That someone busted the myth of Bitcoin four years after it was made public knowledge that bitcoin was not anonymous.
massive_bereavement@kbin.social 10 months ago
I guess you hadn't read the article. The point wasn't that the ledger is public, but that the accounts allegedly were deemed anonymous.
My point is read the article then criticize it.
Varyk@sh.itjust.works 10 months ago
I read it, the point is that people who hadn’t even read the basic information about Bitcoin presented by it’s creator assumed Bitcoin was anonymous.
This is not as groundbreaking as you seem to think it is.
Some people didn’t take the time to read closely or think critically and then made poor assumptions.
Like you, for instance, with your comment.
eager_eagle@lemmy.world 10 months ago
But it wasn’t deemed anonymous by anyone who read the bitcoin white paper from 2008. That’s the point… that was never a myth to bust.
FaceDeer@kbin.social 10 months ago
It's paywalled.